Commitment to Regulation is the title of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) October 12 conference in Sheffield. The private security sector can expect to hear from the SIA – assuming political approval from the Coalition – of how the regulator will develop. Mark Rowe previews.
In the years since the SIA went live – first with badges for door staff, then in 2006 for contract security officers in England and Wales – Scotland and Northern Ireland following later – the regulated sectors have grumbled about the regulator, whether about slow service or its cost. To recap, last autumn the new Coalition proposed abolishing the SIA among other quangos (quasi-non-governmental organisations). Not only has the SIA avoided that fate, the security industry now has the prospect of more compulsory regulation: of security businesses, besides individual guards, doormen or CCTV operators. The SIA now has to square a circle – of satisfying the Conservative-led Coalition which wants less ‘burden’ on businesses, and the other interested parties that were all hard to please while Labour were in power: the Home Office and police, wanting public safety; buyers of security, who want value for money; and the individuals (quite often on minimum wage or just above) and security companies that pay for the SIA licences. Whatever the SIA did – whatever changes the SIA announces at Sheffield – someone will grumble. However the SIA has a new, yet more dangerous enemy: indifference.
In fairness, the indifference of people to the regulator is not its fault. People inside and outside the SIA optimistically saw the Coalition-imposed ‘phased transition to a new regulatory regime’ as a chance to review; a second chance to put anything right, after the SIA began in 2003. Just as users of security may quibble whether they need to pay for a service, if crime is reduced or low, so some may query the continued need for the SIA, if non-compliance is low and thugs are largely chased out of the sector. Or: if – and views differ – criminality remains a risk in some sectors, such as building site guarding, then why water down regulation? But for many in private security, simply staying in business is hard enough. To take the two main sectors badged by the SIA: pubs have been closing for years, and the pubs that need door staff most, catering for a young city centre clientele at a weekend, face the fiercest competition for customers on price. Manned guarding margins remain slim. The close protection world – where the training for a CP SIA badge can easily cost £2000 – has seen UK demand slump as corporate users of CP do without. And as for public space CCTV, while August’s urban riots may yet prompt councils to keep or increase their control room staff, many councils have already made cuts and retreated from 24-7 operations. Just to complicate matters, the minority, Liberal Democrat part of the Coalition has come out in favour of regulation of CCTV for civil liberties reasons. To sum up, the regulator has to square a circle: do its job, enforce the law, while asking less from those regulated; all this from security people having enough of a job to stay in business.
This October conference follows the SIA’s previous event in March, where the SIA aired its ‘blueprint’ for a new regulatory regime. The day will consider the developing proposals for the new regulatory regime, outline progress since the spring, and discuss the security requirements for the London 2012 Olympics. You can read more about the blueprint and some of the March speakers at the SIA website –
